bvandeusenandClaude Opus 5
88e9c0b0bd
CI & Build / Python lint (push) Successful in 5s
CI & Build / Plugin hooks (push) Successful in 9s
CI & Build / integration (push) Failing after 32s
CI & Build / TypeScript typecheck (push) Successful in 37s
CI & Build / Python tests (push) Successful in 1m8s
CI & Build / Build & push image (push) Successful in 31s
A spike is a shape the other kinds cannot hold. `work` ships a change; `issue` fixes something broken. A spike is time-boxed and its output is KNOWLEDGE — it succeeds by producing an answer, and nothing ships at the end of it. Filing one as `work` makes a finished investigation look like an abandoned change, which is why the distinction earns a value rather than a convention. It is also the record a failed check asks for. This milestone gave rules a verify_with; when one fails the rule is wrong, and the next move is often to go and find out what replaced it. notes.arose_from_id already exists (0065), so constraint -> spike provenance needed no schema at all — only a docstring saying it is there. Rule 36: the value and the widened CHECK land in the same migration, DROP then ADD, exactly as 0065 did for 'issue'. The two whitelists live in one tuple each so upgrade and downgrade cannot disagree about what the list was on either side. The downgrade demotes existing spikes to 'work' first — lossy, deliberately, because the alternative is a downgrade that fails on real data, and one that says what it did beats one that cannot run. 'plan' stays whitelisted though retired: historical plan-tasks carry it, and a row that cannot be rewritten cannot be edited, restored or migrated. The integration test asserts both halves. A test that only proved 'spike' is accepted would pass just as happily against a table whose CHECK had been dropped and never re-added — which is the other way rule 36's failure happens — so an unknown kind is asserted to still raise. Not in scope, deliberately: any special lifecycle, time-box enforcement, or gating relationship. It is a kind, not a workflow. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>